From the F.I. themselves

  • Thread starter Thread starter corsair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What a mature, thoughtful and obedient response from the FI.

We all have much to learn from men like that.
 
Quite honestly, it’s a shame they even had to address it. But, I am grateful that they put it to rest. They have truly set a great example by their response.
 
The comments on the FI link are as distressing as the Rorate Coeli comments.

In all seriousness, what do you think will unify us so that we are no longer going at one another? For Catholics to be doing this is disgraceful. It has to stop. We are doing neither ourselves nor Holy Mother Church a bit of good.
 
Lormar said:
The comments on the FI link are as distressing as the Rorate Coeli comments.

In all seriousness, what do you think will unify us so that we are no longer going at one another? For Catholics to be doing this is disgraceful. It has to stop. We are doing neither ourselves nor Holy Mother Church a bit of good.
Click to expand...
The first thing that we have to stop is getting in other people’s lives. Nothing creates division more quickly than intrusion. No one likes it. I’ll give you an example.

We have a dog named St. Maximilian Kolbe, Max for short. Since I can barely go out anymore, I’m usually the one who cares for Max. I take him for a walk. Sometimes, Max gets ahead of me and starts to pull on the leash. He finds something interesting to him. If I pull on the leash, his first instinct is to pull harder.

Then there are times when we go for a walk in the dog park and he’s off leash. If I try to get close, he runs. If I turn away and walk in the opposite direction, he runs after me and catches up.

Why is this?

Because living creatures are built with a sense of autonomy. They don’t like to be pulled or pushed. It’s natural in us to resist. What I see happening is that there are too many people trying to opine and second guess. Eventually, the message that comes back from the friars is “Cool it” instead of “Thank you for your concern.” Why? Because the concern, if it is that, has become invasive. Now you have the dog pulling on the leash trying to get away, because it feels as if others were trying to restrain him from being himself.
 
I would like to remind everyone here that the ‘official’ response from the FI was that given by those who did not want the Latin Mass. These were the ones put in leadership after the Latin Mass loving superior of the FI was removed. Of course the letter from their new leaders will be in support of the changes.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not questioning the Popes actions but we need to remember that many Popes in history have made grave mistakes, it is not without possibility that this Pope over reacted to a bad situation. Perhaps a more balanced way of handling it was to remove the Superior, as he did, then let each house determine if they want to do both the Latin mass and the Novus Ordo mass OR the Novus Ordo only. This way both sides would be happy and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of laity that enjoyed their Latin mass would not be left in the lurch.

Is there anyone that can tell me why this would not have been a more balanced response?
 
St_Donatus said:
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not questioning the Popes actions but we need to remember that many Popes in history have made grave mistakes, it is not without possibility that this Pope over reacted to a bad situation. **Perhaps a more balanced way of handling it was to remove the Superior, as he did, then let each house determine if they want to do both the Latin mass and the Novus Ordo mass OR the Novus Ordo only. **This way both sides would be happy and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of laity that enjoyed their Latin mass would not be left in the lurch.

Is there anyone that can tell me why this would not have been a more balanced response?
Click to expand...
The Rule of St. Francis does not allow this. A chapter cannot impose what the Church deems to be extraordinary. To do so, you must create a statute that you append to your constitutions. Then you must submit that ammended constitution to the Holy See. Only the Holy See has the authority to promulgate the amended constitution.

SP says that the decision is up to the major superior. Houses are governed by a guardian. A guardian is not a major superior. A major superior is a Provincial Superior or a Superior General.

SP says that the major superior makes the decision based on the law of the institute. Here is where the Rule of St. Francis enters the picture. St. Francis ruled that only he and his canonically elected successors can govern. A guardian is not a canonically elected superior. He is appointed to represent the major superior. He also ruled that no one may add to the rule, under penalty of eternal damnation, unless the pope does it himself. Therefore, no one can add what is extraordinary. Only the pope can do that.

If the entire community or even the majority wants to amend the constitutions, a vote must be taken. Whatever 2/3 + 1 chooses is recorded and submitted to the Holy See. The Holy See can promulgate it or veto it.

The problem here was that what was being done was not submitted to the Holy See. It was decided by a vote, but never promulgated. There is a question of legitimacy.

The other problem is that Franciscans may never have anything to do with the SSPX. There seems to have been a link between some in leadership and the SSPX. There was a fear from within the congregation that this could lead to heresy and disobedience.

In the Rule of St. Francis, we are bound to absolute and unquestioning obedience to the pope and the local bishop, unless the command contradicts moral law. If the Church says to celebrate mass standing on your head, as ridiculous as that may be, it’s not contrary to any moral law. You must do it under penalty of excommunication.

The houses cannot decide for themselves, because they do not have jurisdiction. Francis does not grant that kind of jurisdiction to the houses.

If they were to amend the constitutions to say that the houses can choose, then it would be possible, because the authority is coming from the top down. But to amend a constitution is not easy.

No Franciscan community can call a general chapter without the explicit permission of the pope. The superior general must write the pope and request permission for a general chapter. The only general chapters that can take place without the expressed permission of the Holy See are the electoral chapters, because those are built into the rule. You must have one every six years.

This is how Pope Benedict came to be involved and how he appointed the commissioner. It was not Pope Francis. Pope Francis simply repeated what SP already says and commanded the friars to comply with SP.

To answer your question, the pope cannot allow each house to choose, because Francis retained all authority for himself and his successors alone. Only superiors general enjoy Franciscan Succession, even then, with the limits that Francis places on them. The pope would have to say that the local superior is the canonical successor of St. Francis. We know that’s not true. The local superior is limited in his authority. To expand his authority the pope would have to overrule St. Francis. That can open up Pandora’s box, especially because the SSPX is remotely involved.

It’s confusing, but Francis’ system of government actually works.
 
From what I understand, the FFI’s in Massachusetts announced that starting Ash Wednesday previous, that they would offer only the EF mass. This itself would be following the offering of only one form of the mass, albeit not the OF of course. Obviously this decree changes that… I really am surprised by (what seems to be) how much the Holy Father is intervening and is changing things that the superior allowed. I always thought from what I read on here that Religious have all these exemptions, and cannot be punished if superiors allow this and that, etc.

I do not understand why this is being disciplined in this way, even if fraternity is struggling, when orders have priest who publicly dissent and preach contrary to church teaching, and other members of those orders denounce them, and nothing happens. I. Don’t. Understand.
 
Esrb99 said:
From what I understand, the FFI’s in Massachusetts announced that starting Ash Wednesday previous, that they would offer only the EF mass. This itself would be following the offering of only one form of the mass, albeit not the OF of course. Obviously this decree changes that… **I really am surprised by (what seems to be) how much the Holy Father is intervening and is changing things that the superior allowed. **I always thought from what I read on here that Religious have all these exemptions, and cannot be punished if superiors allow this and that, etc.

I do not understand why this is being disciplined in this way, even if fraternity is struggling, when orders have priest who publicly dissent and preach contrary to church teaching, and other members of those orders denounce them, and nothing happens. I. Don’t. Understand.
Click to expand...
**The superior cannot allow what St. Francis prohibits. ** Superiors do not trump the founder. Only the pope trumps the founder. Go back about two posts where I explain how government in the Franciscan family works.

The Holy Father is not punishing or disciplining in any way.

He is saying that they have to follow:
  1. The will of St. Francis
  2. Canon Law
  3. SP as it was written
You’re not going to like the exemption that applies here.

SP said that priests who belong to religious orders can celebrate the EF in private without having to ask for permission, right?

Here is the exemption. Franciscans may not celebrate private masses said St. Francis. Therefore, we are exempt from that sentence in SP.

You don’t know that. Superiors are not supposed to reveal what actions they take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top